Sunday, April 01, 2007

I'm not really sure who perpetrated this, but bear with me, this may be a wee bit complicated.

The various folks at scienceblogs.org and pandasthumb.org have recently had great fun debunking a character at the Discovery Institute named Michael Egnor. (From Pharyngula: Example 1, Example 2.) Egnor claims to be both a neurosurgeon and an evolution skeptic, and he holds some truly laughable creationists views.

Today, both Panda's Thumband Pharyngula are reporting that the Discovery Institute revealed, through their evolutionnews.org site, that Michael Egnor is an elaborate hoax. Egnor is not real, they say, he is a construct to see how "gullible" these "Darwinists" are and bait them into silly ad hominems. And boy, did it ever work!

Only one problem. I noticed, and apparently so did several other commenters, that the link above actually goes to evolutionnews.NET, not evolutionnews.org. And furthermore if you try to get to the main page of evolutionnews.org, as I did, you can't -- there's a 404 error.

Cleverly, though, all the links on the .net page redirect to the appropriate areas of evolutionnews.org, so to the careless reader, it appears that they are all part of the same site. Also cleverly, the header was stolen from the .org site and so were the stylesheets, so it looks nearly identical.

The thing that tipped me off was that I went to the main site to look at what else was posted before and after the alleged "April Fool's" post, and found that the post itself was not there. There was, however, a NEW post by Michael Egnor, which begins: "I am a devout Catholic..." I thought: "Hmmm, that's odd that they would try to keep up the pretense after they just revealed that it was a joke..."

So, dear readers, the joke's on YOU. As crazy as Michael Egnor sounds, he's the genuine article. Assuming that PZ himself is in on it, sorry for ruining your joke, but I figure people will read your site before ours. :)

So if it were proven scientifically without any doubt and without the bible at all that God exists, would you close your doors and believe then. I have found scientific proof of God without any verses and such. I have straight science and provable where Darwinism is flawed with evidence to back it up. Tracie and crew are you actually ready for reason or are you just going to keep calling me a liar without any evidence of your own. You don’t have to perform intellectual suicide to believe in a creator.

I must admit without all of you atheists challenging me to be precise about my thoughts, and forcing me to back up my thoughts, I would never have found this evidence. After exploring this subject I have found the proof all of you are looking for.

Unfortunately I just found it so I will need time to gather said evidence for a presentation. The evidence is there and I am willing to do what it takes to provide the evidence for every one of your viewers.

Are you willing to look at scientific evidence of a creator without biased against me? You are all trying to discredit me because I misspelled something Martin, when I have pointed out proof that you have done the same. Let’s start with a clean slate and a new blog to present a case for a creator. I challenge all of you against my evidence. Do you accept this challenge? I will prove my position in a whole radical new way do you accept my challenge?

I challenge all of you to a true debate. We can give each other a week or more to prepare rebuttals and such Do you accept? I can even call in but I am afraid that you all would be at a disadvantage and may look unorganized to your fans and you may loose live on air. That would hurt you egos. I would like to explore possibly a mediator or judge to run the debate as to not have a biased and slandering medium that you all love to run to.

Winner takes all, if I lose I turn away and let you all spew whatever hate filled dribble you want but if you lose and I am declared the winner then you have to publicly denounce your program and shut down. We can negotiate the prize but that is what I wish. It could be fun, you have all said how uneducated I am so it should be a breeze for you, right?

"Winner takes all, if I lose I turn away and let you all spew whatever hate filled dribble you want but if you lose and I am declared the winner then you have to publicly denounce your program and shut down."

What about you?

How about if you win, you get to spew whatever hate filled dribble you want about us not getting into your great country club in the sky.

But what if you lose? I’ll give the inch that the Bible’s right in that I am a fool for asking as though you’d even concede to evidence to the contrary (hence faith). Nonetheless, I’ve (and I don’t speak for anyone but me) always said were there a God who wants to know me, I’d want to know Him (worship is another question but we’ll fall of the cliff when we get to it). I’m pretty sure that last sentence was a grammatical nightmare and I apologize.

Dan, you have me on the edge of my seat and I’m willing to hear you with an open mind. But I have to point out right off the bat that should I challenge your evidence with questions and skepticism (because I will, it’s how science works) does not mean that I have a closed mind and am dismissing you out of hand.

I can’t wait, but take your time and get it all together. We’ll need the time to figure out what happens to you should you fail to bring us around.

"Winner takes all, if I lose I turn away and let you all spew whatever hate filled dribble you want but if you lose and I am declared the winner then you have to publicly denounce your program and shut down."

He really is funny. If "us guys" win, Dan will leave a place where he showed up unannounced, a place he was never asked to proselytize to anybody in the first place, but took it upon himself to do so in an atheist encvironment.

"If you win, I'll finally stop annoying the crap out of you and wasting your time. If I win, shut down your whole operation."

Sounds great, genius.

It's like trying to argue with a complete stranger in a restaurant, who wasn't asked to be bothered, but the pest says he'll leave if he loses the argument, but if he wins, the bothered guy has to habd over his car keys!! I think that's called extortion the last time I checked.

Hilarious, really. I'm tempted to say you can't make this stuff up, but I'm not so sure.

You don’t have to perform intellectual suicide to believe in a creator.

Then why have you?

You don't impress us with the adolescent bluster of your latest "challenge," Dan. We already don't take you seriously, as you've amply demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about just about every time you sit down to the keyboard. Tracie and Stephen in particular have TKO'd every argument you've offered without breaking a sweat. You're just not the master apologist you seem to think you are.

If you've had your feelings hurt by the mean things people like me have said about you here, you should consider that your behavior up till now is what has earned it. Consider that a person who tries to tell us he's smarter than Richard Dawkins and yet writes at an elementary school level is going to be mercilessly ridiculed as an idiot. If you don't like being called "uneducated," then stop making false and uneducated statements about subjects like evolution, about which you simply aren't in possession of the facts. Stop saying brainless crap like "Darwinism is flawed" when the mere utterance tells us all we need to know about how you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about. Learn some of this "humility" you've arrogantly lectured us about and accept that there are many fields of knowledge in which you don't have the necessary expertise.

Your macho tone neither intimidates nor intrigues us. If you have "evidence" (now, amazingly, suddenly, after a month or more of laughable and easily demolished pseudo-arguments), then present it. We will evaluate it on its merits and draw our conclusions accordingly. Keep in mind that if you cut and paste more Ray Comfort silliness, it will simply result in more abuse for you. So save the "winner takes all" bravado for the other third graders, and present whatever it is you think you have to present.

And... now that you have said it, we will hold you to your promise to go away if this amazing new evidence you've got is as bad as what you've offered up to now.

Dan Marvin said... >I have found scientific proof of God without any verses and such. I have straight science and provable where Darwinism is flawed with evidence to back it up.

So you really do figure you are the superior to all your Christian predecessors? Impressive, hmmm, what is the word I am looking for here?

>Unfortunately I just found it so I will need time to gather said evidence for a presentation. The evidence is there and I am willing to do what it takes to provide the evidence for every one of your viewers.

I’ll hold my breath as I expect you to be prompt.

>Are you willing to look at scientific evidence of a creator without biased against me? >I will prove my position in a whole radical new way do you accept my challenge?

I am more than willing to help out here as I have several dozen peer review papers published myself and have helped my colleagues review a few for publication. You really don’t need to be radical, old school proofs and complete sentences will be more than enough. Graphics! Everybody likes graphics but be concise.

>I challenge all of you to a true debate.

If you have evidence, why would a debate ensue?

>I can even call in but I am afraid that you all would be at a disadvantage and may look unorganized to your fans and you may loose live on air. That would hurt you egos. I would like to explore possibly a mediator or judge to run the debate as to not have a biased and slandering medium that you all love to run to.

It is an open line free for all who care to call. Hmmm, that word is on the tip of my tongue, what is it?

>Winner takes all, if I lose I turn away and let you all spew whatever hate filled dribble you want but if you lose and I am declared the winner then you have to publicly denounce your program and shut down. We can negotiate the prize but that is what I wish.

If you win you become wealthy and famous. You will be renowned by Christian’s world wide as the greatest Christian since Saul of Taurus. Is that enough reward for you?

>It could be fun, you have all said how uneducated I am so it should be a breeze for you, right?

It won’t be fun, but a breeze? I think it was Bertram Russell who said there hasn’t been an original thought in 2000 years and I think that your theory will be shown to pre-exist and its rebuttal easily found with a simple Google search. I have yet to see the exception to this assertion.

>Not to mention that atheist like Tracie and Otto do not even believe that Jesus existed when everything under the sun points to Jesus.

I made an original statement to you about this. Later I had to post my original quote and correct you, because you said this same thing. So, I’ve already corrected this error once. This is twice now. So, you can’t claim ignorance. You’re purposely misquoting me. Please note my quote, presented to you for the third time now in the comment areas of this blog:

>>My quote you are responding to: “First of all, I never said there was no Jesus. You assumed it, I’m guessing?”

The truth is that I’m very open to the idea that the legends are based on a real person. Nobody can say for sure Jesus lived. And anyone who makes that claim of knowledge is lying or mistaken; but I don’t think it’s unlikely that the Jesus stories are based on a real person. Just because I point out that his existence is not established fact does not justify your repeated misquote that I don’t believe Jesus existed.

>are all just fake or made up people to just put up nice looking buildings?

Buildings, such as St. Peter’s Cathedral, were built, literally centuries after the events supposedly took place. The people who built these buildings had no firsthand knowledge of the existence of Jesus or the apostles. They believed in these things, certainly. There were also myriad temples and monuments dedicated to Athena and Apollo in Greece. According to your argument, Athena and Apollo must have really existed, since many buildings bore their names and likenesses.

I notice that nearly across the board the arguments you expect people to accept in defense of Xianity, you openly reject in defense of other religions or ideologies (such as alien abduction). Why is it that your arguments are only valid when applied to Xianity? Why does argument X support Xianity; but the exact same argument X doesn’t support Greek pantheons—even though it’s the exact same claim applied to both ideologies?

Just because people believe X existed, and name things after X doesn’t prove X existed. You agree with this—otherwise, you’d believe in Athena. If you don’t believe in Athena, even though there are buildings named after her—why in the world would you try to use that same logic (that you find unconvincing about Greek polytheism) to sell the existence of your personal beliefs about Jesus and/or the apostles to me?

I agree that it is likely they existed—just as King Arthur and his court and Robin Hood and his Merry Men. The Jesus and the Apostle tales were most likely based on some level on real people as well. But to say that we are certain they all existed is way overstating what is supportable by the evidence available to us today.

>Where is Mohammad’s statue?

It is against Islam ordinance to create an image of Mohammed.

>2 billion people were moved so dramatically that they can’t be convinced to do anything but God’s will.

And many Moslems and Buddhists are moved just as much. And people have given up their lives for purely political causes as well—even supporting things such as Nazism. Again, alien abductees often express that their lives have dramatically, and forever, been altered by their experiences. Are all these claims true, then? If you reject their claims and arguments—then you should have a clear understanding of why I reject your claims and arguments. If the argument is not convincing when others use it to support their ideologies—it really is no more convincing when you use it to support yours.

>the experiments would not work with true Christians.

The big problem here is that nobody can define a “true Xian.” You posted a section from Patrick’s blog, and you applauded his faith in god. If five years from now, you find out Patrick has become an atheist or Buddhist, you’ll say he wasn’t a “true Xian.” There are many people on this forum you’ve already done exactly that to. It is impossible to ID a “true” Xian, since none of us can see into the future to know who will remain faithful.

>We are capable of resisting evil, he argues

I agree. People resist harmful impulses all the time. It doesn’t require supernatural intervention.

>who is teaching who here.

I think this may be the problem. I’m listening to you, and even thinking about what you say—to the point I come to this area to post sometimes during the evening with ideas I come up with later that night or the next morning. I’m not opposed to “learning” something. But just above you say, “There are buildings named after X—so X has to be real”—and then I think, “Well, there are buildings named after Y, and nobody here, including Dan, thinks Y is real…So why would Dan even use that as an argument?” Does he think we’re all stupid enough to accept an argument to support his belief system that he, himself, would never accept to support someone else’s belief system? I don’t get insulted—but I can’t imagine that your “arguments” aren’t meant to insult our intelligence on some level. Otherwise, I can’t explain why you seem to expect us to believe things about your personal beliefs that you clearly see as fallacies (and openly reject) when applied to other people’s beliefs.

I am considering what you’re saying. I’m not offering some borrowed quote or learned apologetic or Bible verse. I’m saying, “I hear you Dan, and this is what I think about what you just said.” The problem is, I have said the following more than half a dozen times:

“If there is no god, then any claims regarding what god says, does, or intends are based on a false premise. Therefore, before we can make claims about what god is responsible for, we have to show there is a god—so we know our claims about god are not based on mistaken speculation.”

And I’ve provided examples that, as far as I can tell, we all agree show the practical importance of this statement. But it remains unaddressed. It’s not just a logical concern—it’s practically concern:

People believed in humors because they saw illness. But if someone hadn’t realized we have to confirm our premise (humors)—then we’d never have learned about germs. We wouldn’t have vaccines or many of the very helpful treatments we have today to help ill people. Humors aren’t a “given” just because we experience illness.

I don’t see the flaw in this logic. I don’t see how this is not a practical, as well as a logical, concern. And you have not yet once “heard” it and responded to it.

The closest you came was to offer that the need for faith negated it. But my response to that was that I don’t have to believe in the power of my remote control in order to see it work. I don’t have to believe in “starving to death” in order to die if I quit eating. There is, in fact, only one thing in the objective reality that I can think of that only works if you believe it works: a placebo. Your god sounds like a placebo. And when I see that you say you’re “transformed”—but you manifest the same “failures,” I can only assume this transformation is a delusion. There doesn’t appear to have been any significant, observable change that you have demonstrated.

>Tracie believes that by convincing people that there is NO GOD then she is not harming people.

Again, you’re saying I said something I have not said. Here is the actual exchange:

>> What if you convince thousands that there is no God to find out there is, how about then?

>Again, I do not have this ability. I put out information. I do not lie. People interpret it as they will. For example, you’re talking to me. And you believe in god still. You are a perfect example that I don’t have the magical ability to make anyone believe something, simply by explaining why I personally believe it. I’ve explained it to you, and you don’t agree with me; other people have that same capacity—they can think and choose for themselves.

Where did I ever say that “I believe” that I even am capable of “convincing people that there is no god”? YOU actually said it about me. And now you’re claiming that your opinion of me is what I actually said. In fact, above, I’m denying, openly and clearly, exactly what you’re claiming that I said I believe.

I do not attempt to deconvert people from Xianity. You’re simply making this up. YOU said that I am convincing people of things. I never said I was, and I even openly disagreed that I was. I actually said the opposite of what you said I said. See my further quote:

>you’re presenting me with arguments for what you believe, and I’m responding to say why I don’t find them convincing myself. This is not the same as trying to convince you to adopt my ideology. I am not going to Xian forums to deconvert people. I could try to do that, but I have no desire to. If someone wants to know what I know, I’m happy to share it. But I don’t actively try to deconvert people.

It appears that anything I actually say is being wholly ignored; and you just put in whatever you wish I’d said—and attribute it to me. I say X, you say I said –X. It doesn’t matter what I actually type. Above, you’re actually saying I said the opposite of what I truly said. I guess I should be offended or something, but it’s just so outrageous, it’s just funny.

Again, I’m not trying to “teach” anyone anything. I’m just saying what I think. But you apparently have a different agenda:

>You are the ones that haven’t learned anything that is being taught to you.

And this desperate agenda—to prove to strangers that you’re right (not to actually make sure you really _are_ right)—I believe, is what is causing information and ideas to not get through to you. You don’t have to agree with a person to understand what they’re saying or the concerns they’re expressing. But you can’t even comprehend what is being communicated to you. You, literally, are unable to actually hear the other people who are addressing you. I’m not going to play armchair psychologist, but I do think it’s weird that you have such an extreme need to have others agree with your opinions, and I have no explanation about why you get so upset when people question your views or point out your beliefs are not facts. I don’t dare to presume to know how you ended up like this—but I can say that, based on the number of times I’ve had to correct your claims regarding what you said I said, whatever is causing this clearly impedes communication getting through to you, because it creates some sort of a mental communication barrier. I say X, you hear Y—so I said Y…in your mind. But when I go back to see my quote, there’s no question but that I said X.

>Killing babies is not immoral? This is the guy you all are listening to and following

If killing babies is immoral, then “the guy you’re listening to and following,” you believe, killed every baby on the entire planet at one point. Nobody is “following” Matt anyway. That’s a silly claim.

It’s interesting that you bring up the problems caused by unprotected sex in your last post. In many European nations, they have far less problems with STDs and abortion rates—even though their young people are more sexually active. Avoiding negative reactions is more about responsible behavior than hard and fast rules like, “don’t have sex until you’re married.”

>Tracie said ” If this statement were true, converted Xians would be on the cover of Scientific America.” You mean like Sir Newton?

Let’s keep it in context. If what were true? Here’s the conversation:

>>Dan: This is the opposite of what I am stating. It is a radical noticeable transformation that can’t be written off as just a feeling because everything about that person is different. The person goes from being an apple to transforming into an orange.

>Tracie: No, no, no: To turn an apple to an orange requires a genetic level change. You can’t be claiming anything this radical. If this statement were true, converted Xians would be on the cover of Scientific America. Your bias is clear from this grossly exaggerated claim.

Did Cover Guy experience genetic change that made him such a scientific anomaly that he was on the cover as proof of a miraculous genetic conversion? In no way was I saying that Xians can’t be included in science or on the cover of a science journal. I was clearly stating that if they were manifesting miracles—unexplained by natural law—such as apples turning into oranges—they’d be covered in SA. Is this what you’re claiming happened to your Xian cover example? Or are you again, just hearing what you want to hear, and not what is actually being stated?

>Tracie said ” Gravity does not prove Gravity Fairies.” But wait a minute, Sir Isaac Newton did discover Gravity and created law’s of motion for the scientific community he also invented the reflecting telescope had a tremendous contributions to advanced physics and BTW he “possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in nature.” He was a Christian and a scientist.

Yes, and…? Many scientists are not Xians. And…? How does this negate my statement that Gravity does not prove gravity fairies? I don’t see where you’re disagreeing with that logic. Because someone believes in god doesn’t mean they know there is a god or that they can prove there is a god. In fact, if someone as brilliant as Newton believed it and still failed to prove it—that’s all the more reason to doubt it, I would think.

>I have proven the flawed scientific principles of a person you worship called Richard Dawkins ... why would you follow his flawed resoning and not Sir Newton’s?

Is this to me or to the list in general? If it’s to me, I challenge you to find any quote of mine in this entire discussion where I so much as mention Dawkins.

But I will point out a dilemma you’re creating: If there are Xian scientists (not the sect, but just Xians who are also scientists), proving god should be a breeze. Unlike Big Bang theory—which was said to have happened long ago, and can only be studied theoretically from observing residual phenomena—your god is said to exist in the here and now—and is supposed to exist everywhere. So, locating and examining god should be a snap with all of the science Xians now have at their disposal. I find it odd that no Xian scientist has yet accomplished something that should be so easy as locating and examining a currently existent item in the objective reality that is supposed to be found everywhere and anywhere one looks.

>BTW Tracie C&C are of the devil. They had nothing but hierocracies that I noticed when I was a young Christian.

Where do you get your information?

Churches of Christ are the opposite of what you are claiming. They are autonomous and nondenominational—they reject any external, central governing authority. Each church is an independent entity. In fact they rejected the idea of a united authority for churches as unscriptural.

http://www.church-of-christ.net/“Each congregation of the church of Christ is autonomous, answering only to God and functioning within the laws of the land.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ“The Churches of Christ are non-denominational, autonomous Christian congregations. These churches comprise about 2,000,000 members in over 15,000 individual congregations worldwide.”

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9082389/Church-of-Christ“Each church is known locally as a Church of Christ and its members as Christians, and each church is autonomous in government, with elders, deacons, and a minister or ministers.”

http://www.worshipquest.org/church-christ.html“Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations that generally emphasize their belief that they represent the original, primitive Christian church established by Jesus Christ and the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost.”

While I can’t say for sure that there is nobody in the world calling themselves the “Church of Christ” and operating differently—what you’re describing is certainly not aligned with any standard Church of Christ—and I’ve definitely seen some that vary—but none with a hierarchy like you’re describing.

And again, they offer a fantastic dilemma for the doctrine of “personal revelation”—that if each person gets their own personal info from god, then what is the Bible for? That is a very legitimate question. If people get information and “epiphanies” straight from god, I would think this direct communication with god would be more preferable than a book containing forgeries, with a meaning that even Xians can’t agree on.

>If you “LIVE” in sin for a season then you are of the devil. Christians are transformed forever. Eternal life begins here on earth, forever.

Transformed how?

I offer Dan’s past post to Stephen: “But who said I was without sin? I am trying not to sin in my daily walk but I am human and fail.”

>Tracie said ” You say not just your mindset, but your behavior really, truly changes. If that's so, do you still need forgiveness? ” Of course you do! Try that in court I know I raped that woman Judge, but I have changed now and my behavior truly has changed. The just Judge would say “you should change your behavior but you still have committed the crime and justice must be satisfied.” That is why you need forgiving even if you lied once in your life Tracie. Have you ever told a lie?

You seem to be giving an example that supports that a true Xian only has to ask for forgiveness of past sins?

I offer Dan’s past post to Stephen (again): “But who said I was without sin? I am trying not to sin in my daily walk but I am human and fail.”

In your example about the court, you’re describing needing forgiveness for past sins. But it seems you still sin—by your own admission. Are you seriously claiming I should accept that transforming someone who sins into someone who still sins, takes supernatural intervention?

Again, how is this different than claims that Allah, Buddha, and alien abduction, change people’s lives? Even if their changes aren’t complete, it’s as good as your change—since you admit you still do what you did before.

>>Winner takes all, if I lose I turn away and let you all spew whatever hate filled dribble you want

How do you define a loss for you? What are the parameters that we can use to define whether or not you've won? What I foresee is you coming back with something less than convincing, us pointing out it's less than convincing, and you claiming we're all lying and in denial. But under no circumstances, even if you were soundly trounced, can I imagine you actually admitting it.

When I just posted: "I don’t see the flaw in this logic. I don’t see how this is not a practical, as well as a logical, concern. And you have not yet once “heard” it and responded to it."

I have to say, I posted my post here because I was trying to keep up with Dan--but I hadn't read this latest challenge thing. If Dan truly addresses god from a direct manifestation standpoint, then he will have responded to the concern above. I just wanted to clarify that.

Dan mumbled something that sounded like:"I have found scientific proof of God without any verses and such. I have straight science and provable where Darwinism is flawed with evidence to back it up."

First off, there's a problem with your logic here. I know, everybody, I know...I'm shocked too.

How does showing a flaw in Darwinism provide scientific proof of God's existance? The provability of a theory needs to stand alone, independant of other theories. God cannot be proven by showing flaws in Darwinism, all you've managed to do is show flaws in Darwinism if you did that. In no way does disproving one theory prove another!

I see this all the time with IDiots. They love to talk about their "theory", but in reality all they ever do is (unsuccessfully) attempt to find flaws in evolution. They think that finding a flaw in ToE somehow would prove Creationis...er...Intelligent Design. No! *If* you could show ToE to be flawed, all you've managed to do is show ToE is flawed, you have done nothing to advance or prove ID...that must stand alone, it must be provable or falsified on it's one, independant of other theories.

Anyway, unless it's another product of Dan's poor grammar, or another "I wrote one thing, but meant another", I read into this that Dan thinks that his "evidence" will somehow show flaws with Darwinism, and thus, this proves God. It's the same line of thinking I see with IDiots, and Dan is just as wrong as they are in thinking it. And, I suspect, just as unsuccessful.

And if he is successful, I with to preemptively congrats Dan, or whoever he's going to copy and paste from, for winning the Templeton Prize, and most likely even a Nobel of some sorts. Oh, and converting almost the entire human race to Xtianity, since there is now irrefutable proof of the Xtian Gods existance.

I'm putting my money down on it being Samuel J Hunt's new paper that "proved" creationism, that God spoke all things into existance. It basically boils down to (given that if A=B, and if B=C, then A=C):

"1) There is a mathematical and physical relationship between all (a) matter and [b] frequency,

2) There is a mathematical and physical relationship between all [b] frequency and [c] sound.

3) Therefore, there is a mathematical and physical relationship between all (a) matter and [c] sound."

I'm also putting my money down that Dan will never admit he's lost, or that his proof / evidence has been refuted. Either he'll say we're denying the truth, our hearts are hardened and it won't let us see the truth, we're just refusing to acknowledge we lost, or he'll read over / not understand the posts that show where the problems in his evidence is. Most likely the last, as Dan seems to be a creature of habit.

Dan: Why not just give us the link? Why do you need to write up your own presentation, when I'm sure the original paper is much better written and/or easier to understand. The middle man, in this case you, will just serve to muddle the original evidence up a little more. If the original is so irrefutable, so correct, so convincing, why not just give us the original?

Interestingly, I think he's already blown it. Dan, Dan, Dan...do I need to send my fifth grader to school you in how the scientific method works? If you state a conclusion, and claim that it's "proof", then you should've already done the hypothesizing, testings, collection of data, and THEN formed the conclusion. You're doing it wrong! You're starting with a conclusion and working backwards. You've already lost.

If you want to submit, for our consideration, that God exists AND THAT YOU HAVE SCIENTIFIC PROOF then you have to play by the rules of good science.

""I have found scientific proof of God without any verses and such. I have straight science and provable..."

Prior quote from Dan:

"Science can be proven by God but God can’t be proven by science.

"Follow this logic:"God is by definition supernatural."To be supernatural you must be outside of the natural world."Supernatural and Natural are mutually exclusive."Anything that can be scientifically proven is part of the natural world."Therefore anything supernatural can not be scientifically proven."Therefore God can not be scientifically proven."Therefore any scientific proof that God is supernatural must by definition fail."Since God by definition must be supernatural to exist, then the existence of God can not be proved by science."If God were proved by science then it would be part of the natural world and therefore not God.” from Marc Perkel

Wouldn't this means that even if Dan finds "scientific proof" of a direct manifestation of god, we will know immediately it is not the god Dan believes in--since Dan has clearly stated that the god he believes in a god that "can’t be proven by science"?

Additionally, faith will be leveled, and so a god that can be proven is not a god requiring faith--again, wouldn't this be a different god than the Biblical god?

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.''But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own argements, you don't. QED.''Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. (Douglas Adams, Chapter 6, 'The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy,' c. 1979)

The Great Nose knew more of logic than you, Danny boy, and he shows the complete moronic fallacy of your last challenge. You have REPEATEDLY said it's ALL a matter of FAITH, of DENYING what we know and GIVING IN so we may finally SEE GOD.

By the very fact that you have now publically stated you have "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" your version of a god exists, you have just PROVEN he DOESN'T.

Have whomever is reading the latest set of lies to you find you a book on logic and explain that last statement to you.

Were your parents related? Your ignorance is becoming increasingly bizarre all the time.

Tracie:Thank you for digging all that up. It must have taken awhile. I wanted to go find all those myself but I’m too lazy. Also, between your arguments, OT myth lessons and sexy voice I think I’m developing a bit of a crush.

But just for fun I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and point out that while yes, he did say again and again that God was none of science’s damn business (to DISprove, I gathered) he did say “Unfortunately I just found it…”

“It” of course being the evidence. So perhaps he can reconsider his position in light of new information after all.

All you have to do is register and then PM Matt for access. You and Matt will have your own special thread all by yourselves where you can both decide on the rules and definitions. Then you are free to take your time and have a good one-on-one debate.

I think this would be a lot easier than trying to do it on this blog where you feel the need to respond to everyone.

Just to note, that if would be "unfortunate"--because it would have disproved Dan's god exists--as Dan defined his god.

And it would have proven my point (that I repeated ad nauseum) that making claims about god without begin able to examine god means a person is speculating, and it creates a high probability of one's ideas being incorrect.

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.